ASM or illegal working? What national law says
Most mining codes carve out a category for artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) that sits below the full-scale license regime. The trouble is that the category looks different in almost every jurisdiction, and the field evidence for "ASM" versus "illegal working" can look identical from the ground. A pit is a pit. The difference is paperwork, and paperwork doesn't photograph well from a truck window.
What the statute usually tests for
Most national frameworks define ASM by some combination of these factors, even if the exact wording and thresholds differ:
- Scale of production. A tonnage or output cap, often set low enough to exclude anything using heavy plant.
- Depth and method. Surface or shallow-shaft working without blasting, versus mechanized extraction.
- Capital and equipment. A ceiling on investment or a ban on certain machinery classes, like excavators or dredges above a stated size.
- License category. ASM permits are usually issued as a distinct class from exploration or large-scale mining licenses, often with simplified application requirements and shorter validity periods.
- Nationality or cooperative requirements. Some codes reserve ASM permits for citizens or registered cooperatives, which is a separate question from the scale thresholds above.
Where a code sets these thresholds, and which combination of them triggers ASM status rather than large-scale status, is a matter of statute and implementing regulation in each country. A concession holder or inspector working a specific district needs the current text of that code, not a general description, because the cutoffs move with amendments and the definitions are rarely harmonized even between neighboring provinces.
Why the classification question matters in the field
Here's the practical consequence. A working that falls inside the ASM definition and holds the matching permit is lawful artisanal mining, even if it looks rough and ready from a drone or a satellite pass. A working of the same size and appearance with no permit, or a working that exceeds the ASM thresholds (too much plant, too deep, too much output) while claiming ASM status, is the thing a field check needs to verify.
That's the gap between a bare-earth clearing on an image and an enforcement action. Imagery shows you that the canopy is gone and the soil is exposed where it wasn't on last month's pass. It doesn't tell you whether the operator filed for an ASM permit, whether that permit covers the exact parcel, or whether the equipment on site exceeds what the permit class allows. Those are register questions, not pixel questions.
What imagery can do is narrow the list of places worth asking those questions about. A concession or district that's tens of thousands of hectares doesn't get patrolled parcel by parcel on a reasonable budget. New clearings and new turbid ponds are the visible signature of both lawful ASM expansion and unlicensed encroachment, and a monthly scan that flags where the ground has changed since last month gives an inspector a shortlist instead of a map grid to drive in sequence. Illegal Mine Map builds that shortlist from high-resolution satellite imagery, so the permit check and the site visit go to coordinates that actually moved, rather than to wherever the last tip-off or the last routine rotation happened to point.
The legal test for ASM status is still a desk exercise against the permit register and the statute. No imagery product does that part, and no imagery product should claim to. What a monthly change layer does is make sure the desk exercise gets triggered for the right ten sites this month instead of getting triggered by whoever happened to call in a complaint.
If your district's permit list and your district's ground truth have started to drift apart, that's a sign it's time to check what's new on the ground before you plan the next patrol.